George Washington showed us the way. He did his two terms and left. He
didn't need a term limit rule. He was a man of honor and principle. He
showed politicians the correct path but few have followed. It would be nice if
politicians would follow his lead...But they all know better.
bandersen - the big difference between you and I is you believe the government
is a foreign entity.... I believe it is the agent of the people. It is only as
corrupt, or inept as the people - we - elect. The buck falls no shorter than at
our feet.If we are the government - or the government is us - then
it is up to us to make sure government is doing the peoples will. Any
abdication of that responsibility in my opinion.... claiming government is
anything other than a representation and agent of us... is an attempt to excuse
ourselves of responsibility.But when you view the government as an
enemy... yeah... I could see your view. Problem is to me is these same
prophets have also claimed this government was instituted of God. Claiming governments that force people to do right is satin's plan is
absurd. Brigham instituted a secular government that prohibited drinking, open
commerce on sundays, etc... and many of those laws persist today. The books
are full of laws that force you to do the right thing.... are these all
instituted of satan... or only the ones you don't like.... ?
Ulta Bob: Any laws, whether by God, or man, are made to promote proper action.
Socialism, as uncomfortable as you are with the label, is man's version of
actions to 'help the poor', but they never, ever allow for agency,
which is the paramount principle with God. Agency is the foundation of anything
good. Call it what you may, but any system that continues to take away agency is
not anything close to God's system. You may want a system where charity is
present, but any system devised by man is not charitable. In fact, it is just
the opposite. It does not include God and tears down the qualities that make
God's system possible. Hence, Socialism is, in the end, anti-God. Label it
what you may, a rose by any other name is still a rose.
Utah Blue Devil: All humans have a stewardship over others. You might call me
a conservative. I don't view myself as any of the labels that you would
label me. I do believe in the same scriptures you quoted, but that is where it
ends. The government of man is quite different than the government of God.
Socialism is man's attempt to be like God. It bears no resemblance to
God's manner of dealing with the poor, etc., in any way, shape, or form. As
an LDS person, a quick review of past prophet's words on Socialism should
open your eyes as to the evils of Socialism. I am here to help my neighbor,not
delegate to an amoral, corrupt, uncharitable system that responsibility. Those
who want to delegate that responsibility to government, usually already
financially well off, fall into a trap of not wanting to really help their
neighbor, but more than happy to force, through taxation, etc., others to help
their neighbor. Patronizing, passive participants, wanting to use force to
compel others to participate. Satan's plan all over.
J Thompson - the thing is most american do agree with much - good schools, safe
streets, defense of our nation, and even the need to control the budget. There
may be differences between how sides see getting to those ends... but at the end
of the day.... most Americans want the same basic things.It is the
parties that spend much time and effort emphasizing the differences, to the
point that those differences seem to be all that matters. In a recent poll of
Democrats - nearly 70 object to abortion upon demand. But you would never know
that if you listen to the voices screaming from the edges. Same with several
issues on the conservative side... polls showed 80 percent of
'conservatives" approved of increased background checks for gun
purchases.But we are letting the tail wag the dog... and the fact
that we agree upon much is lost in all the yelling.
Term limits results in a congressional staff holding the knowledge necessary for
passing good legislation. With term limits, there is never sufficient time for
a legislator to develop the skills and knowledge to effectively conduct the
business of Congress. However, it is also necessary to weed out the incompetent
and retain the competent, but term limits is not the answer.Also,
the primary purpose of any congressional officeholder is to get re-elected.
That comes before actually doing any legislative business. Since everyone likes
their legislator and doesn't like other people's legislators, one can
readily see the problem. Then, there are gerrymandered congressional districts
which severely restricts competition at the congressional level. One party
dominates and that party's base controls who is available since they
dominate the nomination process. Getting a good congressional representative
becomes difficult.Campaign finance reform is probably the best way
to remove the need for congressional representatives always having to spend most
of their time fundraising. It would also eliminate the special interests who
dominate the legislative process. Additionally, eliminating gerrymandered
districts should open the process up for true representative government.
Eric Samuelsen,You are right. And I am skeptical too.I
did not suggest it because I thought is was likely but because I thought it was
the best outcome.Where just one state imposes term limits, they put
themselves at somewhat of a disadvantage politically as their legislators will
generally have less seniority and power. So, there is no incentive there.Voting the bums out sounds great. But it simply does not happen. The
power of incumbency is too great.What are your thoughts/ideas on the
Twin Lights:I agree with your reasoning, but it's difficult. Passing
a constitutional amendment is difficult, and would require votes from guys
already in office. Which is why I'm skeptical.
Term limits will never happen, congress will not pass a law that will kick them
out of office. As long as we continue to have low information voters, and voters
who only vote for there party we'll continue to have career politicians. I
took the advise of a friend and never re-elect a politician. They only get my
Bandersen.It would be interesting to know which of the definitions you are
using when you say socialism. Maybe you are using all of them, which is not the
proper way to use the English language. Most of the time, we derive
the meaning of a word by breaking it down into its parts. In this case the word
social, which has many meanings but the most important in this case seems to be
“people working together for a mutual benefit”. The ism part seems
to mean a belief system. As for the God part, I tend to put
more weight on the laws that are built into living things, like humans for
instance. Gods laws, as relayed from dubious human beings who are probably
following the laws that are built in have lesser weight. Even so, it
would be great if everyone would follow the laws that you like.
Until lobbiests are banned, political contributions and soft money from all
kinds of sources (Unions, NRW, Trial Lawyers, Businesses), retirements, perks,
franking, etc, etc, etc,are done away with nothing will happen.The
only way to fix this is to get a constitutional amemdment passed for 1- Term
Limits, 2-Mandating that Congress live by all laws they pass. As
far as I'm concerned, Hatch can stay in as long as he wants. While I
haven't agreed with everything he's done, he at least works hard for
There can be no division between people or parties unless both people/parties
want that division. There can also be no compromise on principles or those
principles are destroyed. Surely UtahBlueDevil knows that absence of love and of
charity are not the evils of one party alone. We will be
"one" when people can agree on what we should be. We have a
Constitution that half the people have tossed out or modified in their minds to
mean something other than what is written. We have a President who swore an
oath to protect that Constitution and then used his "pulpit" to shout at
Senators who stood up for the protections guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment.I agree that no politician should serve multiple terms and that no
politician should ever become so "popular" that he can make a career out
of "service". But, term limits is the wrong way to handle things. We,
the people, have a responsibility to clean house and to see that fresh faces are
on the ballot each election cycle.
I am not a preachy kind of guy... I hold my faith very dear... and don't
use it to battle other with. But when I read 4th Nephi... and then I hear
"conservatives' talk about individualism, I have a hard time
reconciling this. For nealy 100 years, people lived together in peace -
because there were no "ties" among them... they were all
"one".But then we read"24 And now, in this
two hundred and first year there began to be among them those who were lifted up
in apride, such as the wearing of costly apparel, and all manner of fine pearls,
and of the fine things of the world. 25 And from that time forth
they did have their goods and their substance no more acommon among
them."Now I am not in favor of what conservatives throw around
as "socialism".... but there is undoubtable a stewardships we have with
one and another.... and emphasizing "self" over others.... that seems to
fall into the wrong camp to me. I am tired of people taking the
easy route and dividing our society into little "ties"... we need to be
one people. Our leaders need to be one...
When the Constitution was originally written the House was to be elected by the
individual voters to represent the population as a whole. Senators were to be
elected by the State Legislatures to represent the States interests. This was
changed by a foolish, populist campaign. If the Senate represented the States
as intended would we have the unfunded mandates we have now. Harry Reid
couldn't have gotten 145% of the votes of the Legislature! States rights
wouldn't have been trampled the way they have been since that Amendment
changed the balance of power. It would be much easier to get rid of the deadwood
in the Senate and campaigns wouldn't be so darned expensive.
@Obama10,That is exactly my point. When asked about congressional
approval overall, only 8% approve of the current congress. But when asked about
their specific representative, approval is closer to 40%. In other words, "I
hate congress, but my guy is one of the good ones." And congress knows that.
They know that they can do whatever they want, or do nothing at all, and get
re-elected. They've proven it over and over. The moment that we as voters
change that dynamic is the moment things start to change. Everyone likes to look
at the nation as a business. It's time we started firing some of the
management. Sending the same people back over and over produces the same
results. What's that quote about insanity? Congress isn't going to
impose term limits on itself. It's up to us to do that.
We all agree, yet we keep electing the same people every year. We only have
ourselves to blame. I like @fatheroffour's idea. But no one will do it
because we think "our" Representatives are not the problem and that it
is everyone else's that needs to go.
Ultra Bob: Your first paragraph is absolutely true. It's nice to see that
we agree on something. It ended at that point. Socialism has done exactly what
you are proposing with no success, but still retaining all the greed,
selfishness, and bureaucratic nightmares. America will only do worse if we try
to implement the socialist model. Americans have some decisions to make that
have very little to do with politics, although,judging from newspaper headlines,
it appears that it has everything to do with it. The decision is this: Do we
follow the God of this land and retain our rights and liberties or do we lose
our rights and liberties because we don't want to follow the God of this
land? There is absolutely nothing you or I can propose that will make a hill of
beans if people don't want to live according to God's law. If we think
we can disregard God's laws and propose man made solutions to our
challenges in its place, ie.socialism, it will fail, and quite miserably.
@FatherOfFour:"In the next congressional election vote for the guy who
is not currently in office."Voting in the opposite candidate
would be the worst of the two evils... We need some George
Washingtons who will voluntarily give up their office to rotate talent in office
for the good of the country. Too bad we don't have such people today
The problem with government is that money and personal greed drives mankind if
every thing he does. Consequently the people elected to government positions
are loyal to their financial benefactors rather than people in general. If we
would have good government for the people we need to stop or lessen the power of
the financial influence. One way to do this would be to prohibit
financial incentives from business, unions, and all other singular motivated
groups effecting election and representation. Another way is to
remove the roadblocks, hurdles and impediments of voting by the people that
prevent people wishes to be implemented. Another way would be to
allow governmental careers. Starting with a curriculum for the education of
governmental types in the manner and ways of proper government, a person would
acquire the skills and attitude by building a resume of government experience.
Proper compensation during the career and at retirement would prevent private
interference.The government is not a business, but can you imagine
the fate of a corporation that fired it’s management every couple of
Revisionism is nice and I agree that there is some grounds for argument, but
many if not most experts believe that the Senate was to be an organization where
incumbents spent long terms. In fact some at the Constitutional Convention
wanted the Senate to be a life time appointment. James Madison, Edmund Randolph
and others wanted 7 year or longer terms (a vote was held on 9 year terms that
almost passed) for Senators. Alexander Hamilton and his group wanted lifelong
terms for Senators. These founding fathers believed that the House of
Representatives might be too unstable to effectively govern. It appears that
their ideas might have had merit because, we have a House of Representatives
currently that appears unable to effectively govern just as they prophesied.
Unfortunately the rules of the Senate have changed over the years to also make
it less effective. Simple majority vote items now require a supermajority.
I love the idea of term limits. But realize we have the ability to implement a
"term limit" every 2 years for congressmen and every 6 years for
senators. If you truly feel your congressman should be term limited, don't
send him back next year.
Well presented argument for term limits. If the Congress felt the need to add
term limits to the President because of the abuse of power by FDR, then the
medicine should also be good enough for Congress. Addtionally with over 300
million people in the country, we should be abel to find competent men and women
that can serve in Congress. I've read many of the arguments against term
limits, but feel like the bigger issue of career politicians is more hazardous
to our country than the other effects we currently face.
Term limits would be great. What would be even greater is a population that was
politically involved and didn't simply vote for the guy who's name the
recognize. If we had good turnout at caucuses and primaries we wouldn't get
the same people over and over again. In Utah the general election is pretty much
meaningless since the (R) will win no matter what, the lower levels are where
the important stuff happens, but turnout is pretty abysmal.
The irony is how many citizens will vote for a Republican or Democrat,then
audaciously castigate the opposing party candidate; so blind that they
can't even see that it is two sides of the same coin! Timothy Clark is
right on here!
To be across the board (not just one state here or there), term limits would
require a constitutional amendment.The easiest fix would be a 12
year consecutive limit in the House or Senate (with allowances for someone who
assumed less than half the term of the prior Senator or House member due to
death, disability, etc.). This keeps the current terms and allows enough time
for each to get accustomed to Washington and make a difference. Then, let them
come home.Whether you are liberal or conservative this would mean
the loss of some you love and some you loathe. But some churn would be good.
Excellent article.Can anyone spell the words TERM LIMITS?
I'd like to propose an experiment. I always hear people complain about
"politicians for life," and talk about the need for term limits to stop
"career politicians." They always complain about congressmen and
senators running forever. So here is my experiment: In the next congressional
election vote for the guy who is not currently in office. Obviously, most of
Utah is not going to do that. They will vote back in the same people that have
been there forever. Then they will talk about the need for term limits.
Amen. Although he has reverence for our founders, can anyone imagine Mike Lee
following their examples and stepping aside to resume his legal career? Not
happening. Ever. He is our Senator For Life for better or worse just like his
It is the junior members of congress, not the senior members, who are refusing
to compromise and causing the current government gridlock.
" A system that provides inherent advantages to those who are incumbent,
wealthy or famous is not acceptable."A good reason to keep
Utah's neighborhood system.